Comparison of intermittent versus continuous infusion antihypertensives in acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to blood pressure (BP) management in acute ischemic stroke remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if an intermittent (labetalol or hydralazine) or continuous infusion (nicardipine or clevidipine) antihypertensive strategy facilitated timelier alteplase administration. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years who presented to the emergency department (ED) between September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2020, received alteplase for acute ischemic stroke, and required BP management with an intravenous antihypertensive were included in this multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Exclusion criteria were initial administration of a non-study antihypertensive, initial study antihypertensive administration >2 hours prior to or any time following alteplase, or receipt of both an intermittent and continuous infusion antihypertensive prior to alteplase. The primary endpoint was the time from ED presentation to alteplase administration. RESULTS: During the study period, 122 patients received an intermittent antihypertensive and 57 patients received a continuous infusion antihypertensive. The median door-to-needle time was 53 minutes for patients who received an intermittent antihypertensive compared to 57 minutes for those who received a continuous infusion antihypertensive (p=0.17). Secondarily, the proportion of patients who achieved the BP target <185/110 mmHg within 15 minutes of initial antihypertensive administration and the incidence of adverse events were similar between treatment groups. In cost analysis, intermittent antihypertensives were less expensive than continuous infusion antihypertensives ($2.20 vs. $71.40). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke and uncontrolled BP, the initial use of an intermittent or continuous infusion antihypertensive did not significantly impact the time to alteplase administration.

Inactivated Four-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Dosing Practices for Reversal of Warfarin-Related Intracranial Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Inactivated four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (I4F-PCC, Kcentra®) has become an important agent for the urgent or emergent reversal of bleeding associated with vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin. There is recognized inter-institutional variability with the use of I4F-PCC, especially as it relates to dosing practices. We sought to characterize variations in I4F-PCC dosing practices and their impact on patient outcomes and describe overall real-world clinical practice surrounding I4F-PCC utilization in the context of the management of warfarin-related intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective pragmatic registry study of adult patients admitted at a participating study site between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, who received I4F-PCC for reversal of warfarin-related ICH. Practices around warfarin-related ICH reversal in context of I4F-PCC utilization are described, including repeat I4F-PCC dosing, adjunctive reversal agents, and dose rounding policies (i.e., rounding doses to nearest vial size vs preparing exact/unrounded doses). All research was approved by local human investigation committees at each institution. RESULTS: Seventeen institutions contributed data on 528 patients to this registry. These institutions were primarily urban centers (74%), located in the southeast USA (47%), with Level 1 Trauma designation (79%), and with Comprehensive Stroke Center designation (74%). Most patients included in the study had sustained a non-traumatic ICH (68%), had a median admission GCS of 14 (IQR 7-15), and were receiving warfarin for atrial fibrillation (57.4%). There was substantial time latency between baseline INR and I4F-PCC (median 2.4 h, IQR 1.4-4.5 h). Most patients received adjunctive reversal agents, including vitamin K (89.5%) and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (31.9%). A smaller proportion (6.0%) of patients received repeat I4F-PCC dosing. The median ICU length of stay (LOS) was 3 days (IQR 2-7 days), median hospital LOS was 6 days (IQR 3-12 days), and overall mortality rate was 28.8%. For institutions rounding doses to the nearest vial size, the first post-I4F-PCC dose INR was statistically but not clinically significantly lower than for institutions without vial size dose rounding, with comparable degrees of INR reduction from baseline. No differences were observed between dose rounding cohorts in adverse effects, ICU or hospital LOS, modified Rankin score at discharge, or mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients received single doses of I4F-PCC, with adjunctive reversal agents and rounding doses to vial size. The time difference from baseline INR to factor product administration is a potential opportunity for process improvement in the management of warfarin-related ICH.

Levetiracetam is neuroprotective in murine models of closed head injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

OBJECTIVES: Prophylactic treatment with antiepileptic drugs is common practice following subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and traumatic brain injury. However, commonly used antiepileptic drugs have multiple drug interactions, require frequent monitoring of serum levels, and are associated with adverse effects that may prompt discontinuation. In the current study, we test the hypothesis that levetiracetam, an anticonvulsant with favorable interaction and adverse event profiles, is neuroprotective in clinically relevant models of SAH and closed head injury (CHI). METHODS: A single intravenous dose of vehicle, low-dose (18 mg/kg), or high-dose (54 mg/kg) levetiracetam was administered intravenously followed CHI. Functional assessments were performed on a daily basis, and histological assessments performed at 24 hours. In a separate series of experiments, mice were randomized to receive intravenous administration of vehicle, low-dose, or high-dose levetiracetam every 12 hours for 3 days following SAH. Functional endpoints were assessed daily, followed by measurement of MCA luminal diameter on day 3. RESULTS: A single dose of levetiracetam improved functional and histological outcomes after CHI. This effect appeared specific for levetiracetam and was not associated with fosphenytoin treatment. Treatment with levetiracetam also improved functional outcomes and reduced vasospasm following SAH. CONCLUSION: Levetiracetam is neuroprotective in clinically relevant animal models of SAH and CHI. Levetiracetam may be a therapeutic alternative to phenytoin following acute brain injury in the clinical setting when seizure prophylaxis is indicated.